Skip to content

Comment on Gawker, How Dare Youparent

Comments

That's a bit of a stretch, I'd say. In this specific case, unless the mayor's tenure is actually benefiting drug crime more than a $200,000 cash infusion would, I don't see how this could be a net positive.

If it were a matter of "give an illegal bribe to an aide who filmed something illegal being done by an already-corrupt official," that would be different. It's still not "life-saving research" unless that corruption is actually costing lives, but it fits with your argument.

I don't think that's what's going on here. The author seems right on target: They're trying to do something that will incidentally (but obviously) fund a whole lot more harm than it's likely to save.

If we think about it as an isolated case then I completely agree.

However, I think that if we can get this video out there, it might help start a discussion about corruption "raise awareness" and all that kind of hard to measure stuff.

My feeling is that the positive is that this doesn't just go away because a couple of people weren't compelled to do the right thing and just release the video. It's not a totally clean victory having to pay these guys, but IMHO well worth it.

Then again, maybe people just don't care, see: Marion Barry.

Edit: toned it down a little.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.